Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ReidLark1n (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 3 February 2024 (Undid revision 1202860488 by SineBot (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
    September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
    April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
    June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
    October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
    Current status: Delisted good article

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    [[Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

    01. In the lead section, mention that Biden is the oldest president. (RfC February 2021)

    02. There is no consensus on including a subsection about gaffes. (RfC March 2021)

    03. The infobox is shortened. (RfC February 2021)

    04. The lead image is the official 2021 White House portrait. (January 2021, April 2021)

    05. The lead image's caption is Official portrait, 2021. (April 2021)

    06. In the lead sentence, use who is as opposed to serving as when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

    07. In the lead sentence, use 46th and current as opposed to just 46th when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

    08. In the lead section, do not mention Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians. (RfC June 2024)

    Israel section

    I agree the CCR suit is undue here, that doesnt have the coverage to merit inclusion, but the criticism of his policies on Israel do have that coverage. @SPECIFICO, would you agree generally that criticism of the support Biden has provided for Israel merits including a sentence on it there? Or, as you reverts indicate, are you simply opposed to any coverage at all? Because you also removed Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes. citing Finucane, Brian (2023-11-17). "Is Washington Responsible for What Israel Does With American Weapons?". Foreign Affairs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2023-12-14.. A number of other sources can be added if you think there isnt weight in sourcing here. nableezy - 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My thoughts are, this is about his presidency, we can't clutter up this article with stuff about that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But why then include any part of it? It isnt NPOV to not include prominent controversies for the subjects we cover. If his position on the war is covered then so to should criticism of that position. If it doesnt belong at all, then neither does most of that section. nableezy - 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, so why cover it at all. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if it was gotten rid of entirely I wouldnt be here. But covering it and not including criticism is why I am here. But currently we cover it in the lead and in a subsection, with nary a hint of any of the substantial criticism it has generated. nableezy - 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's criticism of Israel's responses to Oct. 7 but nothing substantial and widespread that's particularly personal to Biden. A few fringey criticisms -- that he's responsible for everything alleged to be done by Netanyahu (whom he views with profound disdain) -- don't make it significant enough for his bio. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions, that criticism is about the policies of Biden, not Israel. And they certainly are not fringe. nableezy - 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to being FRINGE, we also cannot unduly associate "criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions" with this biography. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is criticism of Joe Biden's actions as president, which we cover at great length in his biography. nableezy - 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the CCR lawsuit is very much WP:UNDUE here. Regarding criticism of Biden's stances on the war, if additional sources could be provided it might be worth a sentence or two in the biography and possibly some more space in Presidency of Joe Biden. However, the way that sentence was worded seems weaselly. I don't have access to the full article to read the entire context, but assuming the sentence Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes is based on the lede's statement Further, U.S. officials risk complicity if Israel uses U.S. support to commit war crimes that seems like a misrepresentation of what the source actually says and how strongly it says it. Regardless, if criticism of Biden's positions on Israel were to be included it would need more sourcing to demonstrate due weight. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is absolutely bonkers that there isn't even a sentence such as "Biden's staunch support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza has sparked significant domestic pushback and protest. Many scholars warn that the United States risks being complicit in war crimes". This is pretty much just a down-the-line account of the situation. Let's do something here. Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It s not "bonkers" when what you claim is patently untrue. All presidents have supported Israel's right to self-defends. Many college-aged students and some liberal members of Congress support Palestine. This is all routine. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not routine. And what part of my claim is "patently untrue"? Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) It is routine, and 2) pretty much all of it. Your position has gained no consensus, so it is time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't actually responding to anything I said, it's just "You're wrong". Give me specifics. The SCALE is so much bigger than what has happened before, which makes it worthy and notable. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually going to make a new section on this, but I think it's related to this section so I'll add it here:

    The nickname "Genocide Joe" has gotten significant coverage, including a response from the White House. It's mentioned in John_Kirby_(admiral)'s article. So the question is, shouldn't it be mentioned here on Joe Biden's article, given that it's directed at him?

    Just going off of news reports on Google, we have Yahoo News, CBS News, Washington Examiner, The Guardian, The Hill, CNN, Fox News, The Rolling Stone, Al Jazeera, and others providing coverage of this nickname. I think it makes sense to mention this "Genocide Joe" nickname here on Joe Biden's article, and the "Israel" subsection seems like a good place to put it.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    One's angry, frustrated little critics create pejoratives all the time, they are rarely noteworthy in that person's biography. It is certainly not noteworthy to the bio of John Kirby either, and should be removed. It was only added on Nov 27th to a little-trafficked Wiki page. Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentiment is widely held throughout the Middle East. It has more importance internationally, I'd say, then a mere domestic policy dispute. KlayCax (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    US is despised. Dog bites man. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I support greater mention of the backlash to Biden's policies re Israel-Hamas, potentially in the lede, depending on other's thoughts. I think this policy is likely to define his presidency in the foreign policy arena, and has already generated significant domestic discontent as well. "Genocide Joe" seems more approopriate for the article specifically about the protests. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To this non-American, non-expert, Biden's position on Israel seems broadly the same as that of every president for the past 70 years. If it was different, it would definitely be worthy of comment, but without further explanation, I see very little of long term significance in it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's significant because it is getting significant pushback in the streets, at universities, even among politicians in his own party. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As opposed to strong support, as it would have in the past. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not even remotely a truthful statement. Support of Israel and opposition to Hamas/Palestinians, and vice versa, does not hew to party lines. At the moment we see the likes of Candace Owens and Ilhan Omar condemning Israel, and the likes of Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden united in their Israel support. Even Donald Trump says he will support Israel by deporting pro-Palestinian student protesters. Zaathras (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree with the above re support/opposition cutting in unexpected ways, which is why the situation is notable and is (very,very probably) historic. Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has become a significant issue for Biden and is the main cause for his decline in support among Muslim voters and possibly also why younger voters now favor Trump. Past presidents did not by the way routinely agree with everything Likud did, as Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out.https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/24/ronald-reagan-wasnt-afraid-to-use-leverage-to-hold-israel-to-task/] I certainly agree that not everything that comes up belongs in the article, but this has now achieved due weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC):[reply]
    Agree - Inspector Semenych (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    why was his position on the New Castle County council removed?!

    Joe Biden
    Other offices

    It seems like it should be worth noting on his bio as a previous office held. lots of other political leaders have a local offices listed before their entry into federal politics. just seems like it's a random thing to remove and I know it was there in the past 2600:1003:B111:9CE3:0:55:4B2:7101 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the opening section, it doesn't need to be in the infobox. Zaathras (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed in the past & the consensus was to 'exclude' from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support keeping it at bottom of the page, not in infobox, as it is both important to the start of his carrer, yet minor when viewing his career as a whole. Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Any thoughts on adding this position to the footnotes section of the infobox where the Senate chairmanships are? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do we need it, what does it really add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Helps provide an overall summary of Biden's political career? Keep in mind this is just in the footnotes section at the bottom of the infobox since its a minor point of the overall article. Example provided - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine there. Certainly a good compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No footnote. What's so important about his time on the New Castle Country council, that 'now & then', somebody wants to add it to the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Post Economies

    Paid positions are self retained and housed by the Federal Government. This particular man comes from background including cooking etectera. Most `presidents` were more interesting because they didn't have internet. I know right. After what came before the great depresssion, it seemed that air conditioning was a problem. Not a problem. I know, right. Well, we've seen them all, from Mary Poppins to Charles Earl. Well, after he gets up, the pastimes of being on tv with his constituents add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:C8F0:A3C0:8ABB:AD48:1692:5F54 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What are you suggesting we do to this article? Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

    Sleepy Joe Biden


    Change to "Joe Biden, also known as Sleepy Joe Biden, is an American politcian Blah blah blah." DanRayy (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been blocked now anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Conservation and old growth forests

    Last time when I added content about the issue to the paragraph "presidency 2021 - present" sub section "infrastructure and climate" it was removed as not enough important. Maybe I really made it too long for a summary page. But I think it worth at least 22 words. There are around 500 in this sub section currently I think. This is what I want to write this time:

    "During his presidency Biden promoted nature conservation so much, that several records was broken. He took steps to protect Old-growth forests."

    Those are the sources. They explicitly mention climate.

    https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-reached-conservation-records-in-2023/

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/biden-forest-logging-ban-old-trees

    Do you agree that it worth to be written? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not here no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Qualifying language in lead about withdrawal from Afghanistan

    Currently the lead reads:

    "He oversaw the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that ended the war in Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control."

    Do we think this language in the lead softballs the perception of the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan? I would like to discuss whether there is a consensus on adding in qualifying language in the lead that the withdrawal yielded bipartisan criticism and was described as chaotic, botched, and/or controversial. While "complete" withdrawal is objective, I feel that the language in the Donald Trump lead reads more critically and maybe we should try to be more balanced. In the Trump lead, for example:

    1) "his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist;" 2) "His election and policies sparked numerous protests;" 3) "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements;" 4) "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic" and it goes on.

    Here are my sources to back up my proposition that the Afghanistan withdrawal be described more critically in the lead:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/18/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-506065 https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/politics/house-republicans-afghanistan-biden-benghazi/index.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58238497 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-decision/ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2-years-withdrawal-afghanistan-continues-cast-pall-biden/story?id=102837216

    P.S.: This is not supposed to be a "politically charged" comment. I just wish to have a conversation about building a consensus.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1202861895"